FINAL REJECTION NOTICE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Drawings: Examiner withdraws his drawing objections in view of the amendments to drawings which are persuasive.
Specification: Examiner withdraws his objections in view of the amendments to specification which are persuasive.
Claim rejections : Applicant's arguments filed on 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 102 rejections: Applicant has not submitted any amendments to claims. However, Applicant prefers to submit his arguments on rejected claims. Applicant argues based on the specification of the instant application but not on the claimed language. Applicant’s arguments may be persuasive if they would have been incorporated in to the claim language. Applicant claims too broad but argues that the anticipation of Kim’s reference is not according to the instant specification. For example, independent claim 1 examiner rejects based on anticipation using Kim’s reference and maps from the prior art of Kim, an RF filter (item 115) connected between the radio frequency (RF) power source (item 110) and the impedance matching network (item 112) via an RF cable (item 119 and paragraph [0028], abstract). But, applicant argues that it is an high pass or band pass filter where Kim’s filter is low pass filter (See remarks page 8/14) but ignores that the same paragraph suggests that the filter can extend to higher radio frequency range 13.56 MHz. Hence, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments on anticipation rejection and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The same arguments are extended to independent claims 11, and 20 also. Hence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for claims 1, 11 and 20 and their dependent claims.
Response to 35 USC 103 rejections: Applicant argues that Bowman reference fails to make up to the deficiencies of Kim reference on claim 1, 11 and hence do not teach or suggest claim limitations of 4,5, 7, 13, 14 and 16. No specific arguments or discussions were made on individual claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees and based on the above mentioned reasons for claim 1, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Same arguments are made for claims 10, and 19 too by applicant. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Applicants arguments are not persuasive as Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are anticipated by Kim’s reference appropriately. Hence, dependent claims are also rejected appropriately. Hence, applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 19 are not persuasive.
Since applicant has not considered the allowable subject matter indicated by examiner, Examiner is finalizing the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 15, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2021/0398778 A1 by Kim et al (Kim).
Referring to claim 1, Kim Fig 1-4 teaches: a processing system (Fig 1 item 100 paragraph [0014]) for processing a substrate (item 105), comprising: a chamber body (item 101) defining a processing volume (abstract, paragraph [0014]);
a radio frequency (RF) power source (item 110, 113, 121 paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0024]) configured to generate RF energy (See paragraph [0024]);
an impedance matching network (item 122 [0016] and item 112, paragraph [0023]) configured to optimize delivery of the RF energy to a plasma in the processing volume (paragraph [0023], [0024]); and an RF filter (item 115) connected between the radio frequency (RF) power source (item 110) and the impedance matching network (item 112) via an RF cable (item 119 and paragraph [0028], abstract).
Referring to claim 11 Kim teaches: A processing system (Fig 1 item 100 paragraph [0014]) for processing a substrate (item 105), comprising: a chamber body (item 101) defining a processing volume (item 111 paragraph [0015]);
a radio frequency (RF) power source (item 110, 113, 121 paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0024]) configured to generate RF energy (paragraph [0024]); an impedance matching network (item 122/112 paragraph [0016]) configured to optimize delivery of the RF energy to a plasma in the processing volume (paragraphs [0023], [0024]); and an RF filter (item 115) connected between the radio frequency (RF) power source (item 110) and the impedance matching network via an RF cable (item 119 and paragraph [0028]) and configured to maintain control of power delivery from the radio frequency (RF) power source (item 110) to the chamber body (item 101) by providing an impedance at oscillation frequencies from about 0.1 kHz to about 1 MHz (See paragraph [0024]) to create a process window with stable plasma and controllable power delivery during operation (See paragraph [0041]).
Referring to claim 15 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 11, wherein the RF filter (Fig 1 item 115 paragraph [0028]) is configured to compensate for dP/dZ type of oscillations between the plasma and the radio frequency (RF) power source with power delivery at frequencies from about 0.1 kHz to about 1 MHz. (See paragraph [0016] and [0028 suggests using a low frequency to radio frequency).
Referring to claim 18 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 11, wherein the RF filter (Fig 1 item 115) is disposed at one of directly at an output of the radio frequency (RF) power source (110 /112) directly at an input of the impedance matching network (item 112 abstract and claim 2).
Referring to claim 20 Kim teaches: A processing system (Fig 1 item 100 paragraph [0014]) for processing a substrate (item 105), comprising:
a chamber body (item 101) defining a processing volume (item 111 paragraph [0015]) ; a radio frequency (RF) power source (item 110, 113, 121 paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0024]) configured to generate RF energy (paragraph [0024]); an impedance matching network (item 122/ paragraph [0017], 112 item [0023]) configured to optimize delivery of the RF energy to a plasma in the processing volume (paragraph [0024]); and an RF filter (item 115) connected between the radio frequency (RF) power source and the impedance matching network via an RF cable (item 119) and configured to set an impedance at oscillation frequencies to allow power at process frequency to pass while minimizing loss via blocking unwanted perturbations to create a process window with stable plasma and controllable power delivery during operation (paragraph [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim's reference.
Referring to claim 2 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 1, Kim is silent on wherein: the RF power source is in a first enclosure; the impedance matching network is in a second enclosure; and the RF filter is in a third enclosure separate from the first enclosure and the second enclosure. However, it is within the scope of an ordinary skill to accommodate in the ports.
Referring to claim 3 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 1, wherein the RF filter is configured to compensate for dP/dZ type of oscillations between the plasma and the radio frequency (RF) power source and create a process window with stable plasma and controllable power delivery during operation. (See paragraph [0041]). .
Referring to claim 6 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 1, wherein the RF filter (Fig 1 item 115) is configured to compensate for dP/dZ type of oscillations between the plasma and the radio frequency (RF) power source with power delivery at frequencies from about 0.1 kHz to about 1 MHz. (see paragraphs [0016] [0025] [0028]).
Referring to claim 9 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 1, wherein the RF filter is disposed at one of directly at an output of the radio frequency (RF) power source or directly at an input of the impedance matching network. (see paragraphs [0016] [0025] [0028]).
Referring to claim 12 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 11, Kim is silent on wherein: the RF power source is in a first enclosure; the impedance matching network is in a second enclosure; and the RF filter is in a third enclosure separate from the first enclosure and the second enclosure. However, it is within the scope of an ordinary skill as it is known skill of the art to accommodate various enclosures and deemed to design choice.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1, 11 above, and further in view of US2021/0029815 A1 by Bowman et al (Bowman).
Referring to claim 4 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 1, Kim teaches using a low pass RF filter for lower frequency range but silent on wherein the RF filter is one of a high-pass filter or a band-pass filter.
However, Bowman teaches a nanosecond pulser RF isolation for MHz frequency range and at higher voltages wherein the RF filter is one of a high-pass filter or a band- pass filter. (See abstract, claim 1).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of instant application to incorporate Bowman teachings of using high pass filter in to the Kim S plasma processing system for treating a substrate.
Referring to claim 5 Kim in view of Bowman teaches the processing system of claim 4, Bowman teaches on wherein the high-pass filter but is silent on a Chebyshev high-pass filter of 3rd or higher order. However, it is within the scope of the art as Chebyshev high pass filters are well known in the art also commercially available.
However, Bowman teaches a nanosecond pulser RF isolation for MHz frequency range and at higher voltages wherein the RF filter is one of a high-pass filter or a band- pass filter. (See abstract, claim 1).Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of instant application to incorporate Bowman teachings of using high pass filter in to the Kim S plasma processing system for treating a substrate.
Referring to claim 7 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 1, silent on wherein the RF filter has a 3dB-point between 1MHz and process frequency. Kim focuses on using low pass filter.
However, Bowman teaches a nanosecond pulser RF isolation for MHz frequency range and at higher voltages wherein the RF filter has a 3dB-point between 1MHz and process frequency wherein the RF filter is one of a high-pass filter or a band-pass filter. (See abstract, claim 1).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of instant application to incorporate Bowman teachings of using high pass filter in to the Kim S plasma processing system for treating a substrate.
Referring to claim 13 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 11, but silent on wherein the RF filter is one of a high-pass filter or a band-pass filter.
However, Bowman teaches a nanosecond pulser RF isolation for MHz frequency range and at higher voltages wherein the RF filter is one of a high-pass filter or a band- pass filter. (See abstract, claim 1).
Hence, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of instant application to incorporate Bowman teachings of using high pass filter in to the Kim S plasma processing system for treating a substrate.
Referring to claim 14 Kim teaches the e processing system of claim 13, wherein the RF filter is the high-pass filter, and wherein the high-pass filter is a Chebyshev high- pass filter of 3rd or higher order.
Referring to claim 16 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 11, Kim is silent on wherein the RF filter has a 3dB-point between 1MHz and process frequency. However, Bowman teaches a nanosecond pulser RF isolation for MHz frequency range and at higher voltages wherein the RF filter has a 3dB-point between 1MHz and process frequency wherein the RF filter is one of a high-pass filter or a band-pass filter. (See abstract, claim 1).
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1,11 above, and further in view of US2022/0270857 A1 by Poulose et al (Poulose).
Referring to claim 10 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 1, Kim is silent on wherein the RF filter is configured for use with processing systems that are configured to perform an etch process with electronegative gases.
However, Poulose teaches using etching gasses for etching the substrates (paragraph [0018]).
Hence, it is within the scope of the ordinary skill. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate Poulose teachings of etching gases in to the Kim S processing system for etching the substrates.
Referring to claim 19 Kim teaches the processing system of claim 11, Kim is silent wherein the RF filter is configured for use with processing systems that are configured to perform an etch process with electronegative gases. However, Poulose teaches using etching gasses for etching the substrates (paragraph [0018]). Hence, it is within the scope of the ordinary skill. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate Poulose teachings of etching gases in to Kim’s processing system for etching the substrates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims, 8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claim 8 and 17, the closest prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest that wherein the RF filter is configured to couple to the RF cable to increase a size of a stability window from about 2' to about 12' to compensate for dP/dz type of oscillations between the plasma and the radio frequency (RF) power source and create a process window with stable plasma and controllable power delivery during operation.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected over prior art as applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claims 8 and 17 are objected and indicated as allowable subject matter.
The prior of art made of record and not relied upon is considered to pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the notice of references cited PTOL 892 attached here with. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-3:30PM, 5PM -8:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALEXANDER H TANINGCO can be reached at 5712728048. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SRINIVAS . SATHIRAJU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
05/01/2026
Prosecution Insights